Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 318 (RAJ)

Ramlal Yadav v. Mahesh

2020-02-03

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') against the order dated 8.8.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In para no. 2 and 3 of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, following averments were made: okn i= vkjEHkRk% vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us d`f"k Hkwfe ds lUnHkZ esa is? dj vuqrks"k pkgk gS] lkFk gh iSr`d lEif?k gksus ds dkj.k fo?; i= fnukad 04-01- 2007 vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k us voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa fujLr fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gSaA bl izdkj vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk okn esa ewy vuqrks"k vius fgLls rd fo?; i= fnukad 04-01-2007 dks voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa fujLr ?kksf"kr djokus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ek= jktLo U;k;ky; dks gSA bl dkj.k jktLFkku dk?rdkjh vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 207 ds rgr vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk okn i= ek= jktLo U;k;ky; ds Jo.kkf/kdkj esa gS] blfy;s vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk okn i= ckMZ ckbZ ykW gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA ;g fd fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gSa fd jktLo U;k;ky; ls [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe dh fcuk ?kks"k.kk djok;s okn i= flfoy U;k;ky; esa fo?; i= fnukad 04-01- 2007 dks voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa fujLr djokus dk vuqrks"k izkIr ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl dkj.k Hkh vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dks flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn i= izLrqr djus dk Hkh gd vf/kdkj ugh gSa] blfy, vizkFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dk okn i= fof/kd fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 3. The Trial Court vide its order dated 8.8.2019 has dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that without considering the objections raised by the defendants in their application, the Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a cursory manner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. Heard. Considered. 6. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. Heard. Considered. 6. From the application filed by the defendants, it is clear that specific objection was raised by the defendants in their application that for cancellation of the sale deed dated 4.1.2007 and for declaring the same void, ab-initio to the extent of plaintiffs' share in the agricultural land, only the revenue Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit, but the Trial Court has not dealt with this aspect of the matter and decided the application with the following observations:- gLrxr izdj.k esa okn ds iSjk la[;k&03 es tks ltjk [kkunku crk;k x;k gS mlds vuqlkj oknh o izfroknhx.k la[;k&01 o 02 ,d gh ifjokj ds lnL; gS rFkk izfroknhx.k la[;k&01 o 02 }kjk mDr Hkwfe dks Lo;a }kjk [kjhnh x;h gks ;k muds firk }kjk [kjhnh x;h gks ,slh izFke n`"Vr;k lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gS] ek= jktLo fjdkMZ esa uke p< tkus ls bl rF; dk ykHk mBkrs gq, Hkwfe dks vU; dks cspku djus ds fo:) fuf?pr :i ls flfoy U;k;ky; esa oknis? fd;k tk ldrk gSA 7. For the aforesaid reason, the revision petition is partly allowed; the 8.8.2019 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants afresh after dealing with the objections raised by the defendants in their application, more particularly in para 2 and 3 of the application. 8. For this purpose, both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27.2.2020.